|
|
|
|
 |
BusinessWeek: January 11, 1993 |
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads |
|
Readers Report
FAULT DEADBEAT PARENTS, NOT NO-FAULT DIVORCE Gary S. Becker's proposed change in policy, and one befitting a University of Chicago economist, is to depend exclusively on the marketplace to work its wonders by mandating that before a divorce is granted, the consent of the woman be required ("Finding fault with no-fault divorce," Economic Viewpoint, Dec. 7). This presumably would result in the wife being able to coerce her husband into agreeing to a financial settlement of a sufficient amount to provide his wife and children with an acceptable standard of living. The more a husband wants to end a marriage, the larger the settlement would potentially be. Life can sure be simple to an economist. A major reason for the precarious financial condition of many divorced women and their children is that all too often, negotiated financial settlements, which could provide women with a decent standard of living, are not maintained by husbands. Not enough is being done to force them to abide by these agreements. Becker's proposal, while it could increase the amount of some financial settlements, would do little to address the fact that state governments collect on less than 20% of the cases of child-support nonpayment. More important, his proposal would again enable one partner to enslave the other by refusing to consent to a divorce. Lester E. Block, Past Director Program in Public Health Administration University of Minnesota Minneapolis The bottom line remains the enforcement of existing laws. How do you get deadbeats to pay? How do you get a dangerous spouse to honor court orders to stay away? How do you get an otherwise good person to visit their children? Mutual consent solves none of these. It's like saying, "Gee, that dog bit me. Maybe if we call it a cat..." Linda R. Knudsen Wichita | |
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1991-2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
